"I know there are concerns about my commitment to fostering equality and welcome for LGBT individuals at Mozilla," Eich wrote. While his post didn't directly mention his $1,000 financial donation to Prop 8, nor his $2,100 in contributions to Prop 8 supporter and CA Congressman Thomas McClintock between 2008 and 2010, Eich did deliver a list of specific and varied plans to "work with LGBT communities and allies," both in reiterating the company's diverse healthcare options and in insisting that he participate in "community-building exercises" down the road. In addition, Eich took the opportunity to announce Project Ascend, a Mozilla initiative meant to expand access to open-source projects to "those who lack privilege."

"I don’t ask for trust free of context, or without a solid structure to support accountability," Eich wrote. "No leader or person who has a privileged position should."

505 Reader Comments

I think to some degree that people are largely overreacting to this. Personally, I do not agree with the CEO's viewpoint. However, as long as those views do not permeate into the companies business or culture it shouldn't really matter.

Except Mozilla has two Ca offices (SF and MV).

Quote:

By funding, and thereby causing, Prop 8 to pass, he prevented any gay employees in those offices from marrying, in California, for the past 5 years.

This is somewhat of a logical fallacy. Prop 8 could(and probably would) have easily passed without the donation. The CEO did support the proposition, but at the end of the day the decision was not his to make.

Quote:

Its the same rational I would use when deciding on who to vote for. I am not a religious person, and yet just about every elected I can think of proclaims to be a person of faith. As long as that person does not use their faith to make their decisions, then I cannot hold their faith against them(I do realize that it can be hard to distinguish the rational behind peoples decision making, and in those cases I try to give them the benefit of the doubt).I shudder to think how the browser market may have evolved without Mozilla, and I still believe the company has a bright future ahead of them. It would be a great shame if something so insignificant as this hurts that future–to the detriment of all.

And yet his belief drove his decisions and had an impact on his company. There are LGBT employees at Mozilla.

Not really. Mozilla is not in the business of marrying people. So the effect is outside the realm of the business. In-fact, since we assume that there are LGBT employees at Mozilla we can infer that Mozilla has no problem with LGBT workers until policies or actions made at the company indicate otherwise.[/quote]

That's not quite kosher, though.

What if he had been supporting an act that, say, reduced benefits for workers? Or prevented them filing suit against employers? Or any other number of things?

Is that really much better than "I'll move out of this neighborhood if that new family is colored."?

Yes. One is an immutable characteristic, the other is an action that demonstrates ones' views. Judging someone on what they do is much better than judging them on the color of their skin.

Quote:

I guess I'm just the old-school card-carrying-member-of-the-ACLU type who thinks, "I don't like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Defending his right to say it does not mean defending him from other private citizens reacting to him saying it. If you're telling them they can't react the way they want, you're not defending their right to say their piece. You're saying that they can't express themselves.

First, /can't/shouldn't/. Second, there is a difference between saying that Eich is wrong/misguided/stupid/wrongheaded/etc. and punishing him for being wrong/misguided/stupid/wrongheaded/etc. I don't like punitive expression because its ultimate aim is to silence the other side, not further dialog between the two.

(Yes, I know it's not the state imposing sanctions against this speech, but in practical terms, is there really much difference between that and a mob of pitchfork-wielding people imposing those sanctions?)

Yes, the government has a monopoly on the ability to detain you against your will.

So? Detainment is merely a tool to impose silence on people who you disagree with. I don't care if government has a monopoly on that particular tool because there are others tools available that accomplishes the same goal of silencing dissent.

[Well within his rights, but a totally dick thing to do, don't you think?

Sure, and that's me being free to exercise MY opinion. I still support someone else stating theirs.

Quote:

People have every legal right to boycott Mozilla or even picket his house. But that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Why not? If they are personally affected, or if it's the most important thing in the world for them, then why shouldn't they make a point to make their voices heard?

Quote:

I'm a liberal atheist who is happy to see gay marriage advance. But I seriously cringe at the way people on our side attack others on the other side. What happened to holding the moral high ground? What happened to not stooping to their level? The people in this thread calling for harsh consequences are, in my view, almost as intolerant as those on the other side.

I'm of the opinion that we haven't yet seen enough to warrant a boycott, but that's my opinion. I fully support others expressing theirs. The free exchange of ideas requires people to exchange ideas by action, typically speech or action.

Do you realize that the law he supported not only prevented the formation of gay marriages and families, it dissolved existing gay marriages and families. This was a real law that had real consequences to people's lives.

"Oh, but a multi-millionaire might be out of a cushy job!"

Fuck him and his career.

How many people have voted for laws that had negative consequences for a group of people? Should all Californians that voted for prop 8 be fired?

His income has nothing to do with it. Would your opinion change if he made $20k/year?

[quote="bettercitizensBUT Prop 8 was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL and IS NOT the law of the land in California. Regardless of Mr. Eich's support the end results is that people in California are now more in favor of SSM. Since that was the result I say that it was, in the end, good that Prop 8 passed, was ruled unconstitutional and evidently changed peoples thinking in California regarding SSM.[/quote]

To give Eich credit for this is like giving segregationists credit for ending segregation. This is a horribly over the top bending of logic to excuse his donations in support of bigotry and discrimination.

A society that does not aggressively sanction marginal thoughts is better.

Couldn't disagree more.

If one of the founding principles a society is built upon states that all (wo)men are equal before the law, then any thought – marginal or not – that aims to circumvent said principle must be sanctioned.

You cannot abridge freedom of speech and still have a free society. If such thoughts are marginal, let them stand or fall on their merits.

People who want to give this guy a pass because he's donated to a right-wing cause - would you be saying the same thing if he had donated $1,000 to the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom or the Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance and he was getting criticized by Republicans for doing so? If not, isn't the rule you are applying really a biased rule - that CEOs should be free to personally support bigotry, but not free to personally support freedom?

That's the thing. "Equality" in terms of identity politics and group-think (such as this) isn't freedom. It's part of duplicitous and irrational Marxist ideology that is easy to use to indoctrinate those with emotionally-dominated thinking is at all odds to the nature. Meritocracy of the individual is what should be strived for, not simply treating people who are different as if they are all the same. Such "gay marriage" "rights" also infringe on the rights of people to promote the traditional family with both biological parents as the optimum model for social cohesion.

I will stop using Firefox because he apologized. He does not support freedom of expression.

I don´t want to live in a world where people mob others to change their point of view or believes. The previous article was full of confirmed gay and lesbian commenter's, which I don´t consider an impartial opinion on the subject. They have their own agenda and you can clearly read it in their comments, even with insults.

I will not tolerate any group of people trying to force others with media public attentions or mobbing to shut down or react different to what they think is correct for them or their families. If this groups of people want respect they should respect them first.

I would like to see how they feel if thousands of anti gay people start to comment trash against them in some article or start a public media campaigns to make gay people be expelled from their job. That would be plain discrimination, but if we turn the tables its fine. Gay people can mob and discriminate non gay people which apparently seems ok. And the truth is that this is probably going to be down voted which will show exactly how mobbing works. They want to shut down by force anyone that does not condemn or accept their own personal choice of sexuality. Respect first if you want to be respected.

Shame on you Ars. Maybe we should make it illegal not to be gay. Boycotts like this show exactly why people have bad sentiments against the gay communities.

And you can bet 100% that his apologizes are not sincere either. Anyone that things that for one minute is a moron. The only reason he apologized in public is because of the media mobbing done by gay people and the organized boycott of oppression again this individual. I´m sure he is calling them all kind of f.... words at home. All you did is cause him to donate and support even more anti gay campaigns in the future. Now you gave him real motives to dislike this groups because actions like this shows the true anti social behavior of some of this people. Just because you have different sexual preferences does not mean you can mess up with others people lives and disrespect them or start bashing them on public.

In turn, we (the open source movement) have every right to disagree with him, and to refuse to work with him.

This is an unprofessional attitude that shows a great lack of empathy and forethought.

There are thousands of cultures, religions, political factions, philosophies, personality types, etc., that should be tolerated without prejudice in any professional environment. To discriminate based off a personal attribute or opinion in any professional capacity is not only unethical but also immoral in my opinion.

Just because you disagree with him on this particular personal opinion, does not give you the right to attack or reject his professional projects.And as much as I wish Prop 8 had not passed, seeing someone try to get even like this is not appropriate.

You keep in mind that the reason why so much variety exists in today's society is because of this ethical duty. That so much has been accomplished because people across nations, cultures, religions, etc., could come together to work and create progress. That so many minorities have grown respected because the majority worked along side them.

It is professionalism the has made the world and open source projects flourish.

DOUBLENOPE. It is principles and hard work (the value of hard work being one of those principles) that has made open source projects flourish. But more to the point: this idea that professional work is somehow sacred, no matter the actions of the person behind the work, may be an opinion you hold as a principle to live and work by, but in my opinion it's an immoral one. It is also my opinion that your attempt to falsely equate those who act wrongly (and suffer professionally as a result) with actual minorities is an immoral diversionary tactic.

I absolutely support your right to hold any opinion you want without fear of legal repercussion, but if you act on your opinion in a manner I find sufficiently immoral, outside the workplace or in, I'll be daaaaaaamned if I let some notion of "professionalism" prevent me from putting my money where my mouth is. That's my ethical duty. Empathy and forethought should guide how I respond in every situation, of course, but I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

See, this thread, and the other one, demonstrates one of the reasons I oppose the advancement of gay rights--it inevitably clashes with rights of others.

Right now, Eich is being negatively affected by the gay rights movement; despite not being gay (I presume; I'd love to see the contortions if it was discovered that Eich is gay but doesn't believe in gay marriage--can you imagine the fireworks here?) There is a big enough stink being raised that it could very well affect his job.

The same thing happened not too long ago with that Duck Dynasty fellow, where only after a massive outcry was their leading star allowed to resume work.

The argument made in both cases is that doing anything that opposes the march of LGBT rights is a priori cause to terminate your employment. Phil Robertson, and now Eich, are presumed to be unworthy to hold employment, simply because they are visible figures who happen to disagree with this leftist cause celebrate.

Indeed, this is not the first time the gay lobby has brought pressure on and gotten someone terminated over prop 8: The name of Scott Eckern, who made a donation and then gay activists got him fired comes to mind. He wasn't a CEO, manager, public figure, or anything--just a regular joe, as far as I can tell, who happened to work in theatre.

Coupled with the recent trend of shutting down and bankrupting businesses who disagree with being forced to serve gays in a personal service capacity--the argument is clear.

Is this the new normal--that if you disagree in public with the gay activist agenda in general, you should lose your job? If you exercise your constitutional right to donate to causes and candidates then you should be fired? That appears to be the argument and expectation made by many if not most in this and in the other thread.

And if that is the case, then yes, it is a very valid reason to disagree with and fight against the expansion of gay rights--before such an expectation becomes further encoded into law.

"Please believe me when I say that I do not wish for Mozilla to discriminate against LGBT people -- I do want my government to do so, and will fund lobbyists fighting for this, but I don't believe Mozilla should do so".

To be clear, he isn't just a guy with a different opinion. He is a guy who used his financial resources to actively deny the rights of those he disagreed with. And now this same asshole is asking for a standard of tolerance that he ACTIVELY opposed for others BY FORCE OF LAW.

Any law, by it's very nature, will deny somebody the right to do something. Anybody supporting the passing of a law with their financial resources will be actively working to deny someone the right to do something by force of law.

How many people have voted for laws that had negative consequences for a group of people?

This wasn't a law that just had negative consequences. It was a law that discriminated BY DESIGN. The whole point of it was to dissolve families based solely on sexual orientation.

Is the status of his career more important than thousands upon thousand of families affected by this law?

And so what? I can propose what ever law I want, if its gets passed is one thing. Its not illegal to do so if the law gets passed.

You don´t have to like it, like i´m sure you don´t like allot of other laws either. We are not here to judge laws, you are supposed to respect them and follow them.

Negative consequences for a group of people? Really? I can name you allot of laws that do.

How about I turn around the tables, not passing the law would have negative consequences for a huge group of people.

You don´t like it? That is what democracy is for. Majority wins. Otherwise move to North Korea.

There are laws that forbid from killing other people. I´m sure that law has negative consequences on serial killers as well or murder actives. Any law will have consequences for anyone eventually. Are both cons and pros for any law.

See, this thread, and the other one, demonstrates one of the reasons I oppose the advancement of gay rights--it inevitably clashes with rights of others.

Right now, Eich is being negatively affected by the gay rights movement; despite not being gay (I presume; I'd love to see the contortions if it was discovered that Eich is gay but doesn't believe in gay marriage--can you imagine the fireworks here?) There is a big enough stink being raised that it could very well affect his job.

Aw yes, his right to decide who can and can't get married is being infringed upon by people who want to get married.

This is an unprofessional attitude that shows a great lack of empathy and forethought.

There are thousands of cultures, religions, political factions, philosophies, personality types, etc., that should be tolerated without prejudice in any professional environment. To discriminate based off a personal attribute or opinion in any professional capacity is not only unethical but also immoral in my opinion.

Just because you disagree with him on this particular personal opinion, does not give you the right to attack or reject his professional projects.And as much as I wish Prop 8 had not passed, seeing someone try to get even like this is not appropriate.

You keep in mind that the reason why so much variety exists in today's society is because of this ethical duty. That so much has been accomplished because people across nations, cultures, religions, etc., could come together to work and create progress. That so many minorities have grown respected because the majority worked along side them.

It is professionalism the has made the world and open source projects flourish.

If professionalism provides for the expression of outdated, bigoted views, it's also outdated and bigoted, and it's gotta go--for the sake of tolerance.

First, /can't/shouldn't/. Second, there is a difference between saying that Eich is wrong/misguided/stupid/wrongheaded/etc. and punishing him for being wrong/misguided/stupid/wrongheaded/etc. I don't like punitive expression because its ultimate aim is to silence the other side, not further dialog between the two.

Punitive expression is a tool in a toolkit. If a kid's store I frequent is run by a person who states that kids are horrible creatures and all he wants to do is make money from them, would you have me unable to choose to shop elsewhere? Why is that any different?

Quote:

So? Detainment is merely a tool to impose silence on people who you disagree with. I don't care if government has a monopoly on that particular tool because there are others tools available that accomplishes the same goal of silencing dissent.

And those tools have restrictions that are more difficult to overcome than those of the government, require popular opinion, and aren't absolute.

Tell me, why should any individual with free will be compelled not to choose the browser they want?

This is an unprofessional attitude that shows a great lack of empathy and forethought.

There are thousands of cultures, religions, political factions, philosophies, personality types, etc., that should be tolerated without prejudice in any professional environment. To discriminate based off a personal attribute or opinion in any professional capacity is not only unethical but also immoral in my opinion.

Just because you disagree with him on this particular personal opinion, does not give you the right to attack or reject his professional projects.And as much as I wish Prop 8 had not passed, seeing someone try to get even like this is not appropriate.

You keep in mind that the reason why so much variety exists in today's society is because of this ethical duty. That so much has been accomplished because people across nations, cultures, religions, etc., could come together to work and create progress. That so many minorities have grown respected because the majority worked along side them.

It is professionalism the has made the world and open source projects flourish.

If professionalism provides for the expression of outdated, bigoted views, it's also outdated and bigoted, and it's gotta go--for the sake of tolerance.

Ah tolerance. It is very tolerant to propose opposing viewpoints be crushed and to call them outdated and bigoted.

Hiring a bigot is unconscionable. It was unprofessional on their part to elect someone who would cause such a controversy, and although I have previously used Firefox and donated money to the Mozilla foundation, I will likely stop doing either until such time as he is fired. By hiring him Mozilla is tacitly saying they agree with his opinions, and I choose not to give my money to bigots.

It is pretty obvious you do not understand what professionalism means. I have tried to explain by answering your questions but what you just said is perhaps the epitome of what professionalism is not.

You cannot decide to hire or fire someone by their personal opinions. That is literally one of the cornerstones of the foundation of professionalism.

I think we agree that Prop 8 being passed was a travesty but this is no way to behave in the honor of those who were wronged.

I find it eminently professional to choose not to do business with a person or entity because of the person's actions, the entity's actions (or both), and their effect on the world I live in - on an environmental level, on a political level, and on a social level.

Beating them, torching their assets, and slandering them are all examples of unprofessional actions.

It's the principled thing to do. He is putting pressure on the Mozilla corporation to rethink their decision to use him as a CEO. Quitting in protest when a corporation does something unconscionable is a completely valid choice. Again, would you feel the same way if Apple elected a new CEO who was a KKK member? Or would it be unprofessional to quit just because you're actively supporting the income of a racist?

No, it's not. It's the opinionated thing to do, not principles. There is a huge difference and you are trying to mix them up.

Yes, if a corporation does something unconscionable, you have the right to quit on professional grounds because the CORPORATION did it. If the CEO on his or her own time or money did something that you disagree on and you decided to quit then you are being unprofessional.

Yes, it would be unprofessional to quit Apple if Apple hired a white supremacist. Yes, you would be unprofessional to stop buying Apple products for your company if you found they hired a white supremacist. But if you stop buying their products personally for the same reason, that is your right.

Now, if you worked for Apple and that white supremacist repeatedly talked about his views during work and it made you uncomfortable, he is being unprofessional and you have the right to force the company to take action against him.

Professionalism literally means you divide yourself into two people, the worker and the human. When people start breaking down that barrier, they are wading into some really dangerous waters.

Hiring a bigot is unconscionable. It was unprofessional on their part to elect someone who would cause such a controversy, and although I have previously used Firefox and donated money to the Mozilla foundation, I will likely stop doing either until such time as he is fired. By hiring him Mozilla is tacitly saying they agree with his opinions, and I choose not to give my money to bigots.

First, I'm not sure people knew his views when they made him CEO. I was active in the Mozilla community for a time, contributing code, etc., and I've interacted with Eich, and I had absolutely no inkling of his views on this matter. I've met others who are open about their religious or political views, but Eich, to my knowledge, was not.

Second, why did Mozilla make him CEO? Hmm. Let me guess. Could it be because he's been with Mozilla longer than anyone else, since the early days of Netscape? Or that he was instrumental in founding Mozilla? Or that he created JavaScript? Or that he's in charge of one of the most important parts of the Mozilla code base? Nah, they must've picked him for his controversial political views.

Is this the kind of world that you want? A world where people cower in fear of the inquisition of orthodoxy that overshadows everything else, including merit? Because that's what you're advocating for, and it's downright scary.

Is this the new normal--that if you disagree in public with the gay activist agenda in general, you should lose your job?

Here's a little experiment or you. Try getting a CEO job, and then go out in public and disagree with, oh, say, equal rights for black people.

See how long you keep your job.

Quote:

If you exercise your constitutional right to donate to causes and candidates then you should be fired? That appears to be the argument and expectation made by many if not most in this and in the other thread.

I don't think anyone is *expecting* him to be fired.

But do keep in mind that just as he has a constitutional right to do what he does, I'm pretty sure the constitution also allows for the right to say "that guy is a bigot, and he shouldn't be the head of a company like Mozilla".

Well, we were speaking hypothetically. In this case, I would not be surprised if his close friends and associates faced similar pressure to distance themselves from him. I'm not saying people don't have the right to do this, they clearly do. I'm saying it's a shitty way for people in a pluralistic society to start behaving. Demanding what is essentially a blacklist is not something you should feel proud of.

In a pluralistic society, nothing is wrong, including being intolerant of intolerant people.

See, this thread, and the other one, demonstrates one of the reasons I oppose the advancement of gay rights--it inevitably clashes with rights of others.

That is irrelevant. Just because rights clash doesn't mean a greater good isn't worth having.

Quote:

Right now, Eich is being negatively affected by the gay rights movement; despite not being gay (I presume; I'd love to see the contortions if it was discovered that Eich is gay but doesn't believe in gay marriage--can you imagine the fireworks here?) There is a big enough stink being raised that it could very well affect his job.

So what? That too is irrelevant.

Quote:

The same thing happened not too long ago with that Duck Dynasty fellow, where only after a massive outcry was their leading star allowed to resume work.

The argument made in both cases is that doing anything that opposes the march of LGBT rights is a priori cause to terminate your employment. Phil Robertson, and now Eich, are presumed to be unworthy to hold employment, simply because they are visible figures who happen to disagree with this leftist cause celebrate.

Yeah? I don't think there was anything wrong with either reaction. Better to hold people to a higher standard, and then relax the standard, than to have a lower standard.

Quote:

Indeed, this is not the first time the gay lobby has brought pressure on and gotten someone terminated over prop 8: The name of Scott Eckern, who made a donation and then gay activists got him fired comes to mind. He wasn't a CEO, manager, public figure, or anything--just a regular joe, as far as I can tell, who happened to work in theatre.

We're all regular joes. He was an artistic director.

Quote:

Coupled with the recent trend of shutting down and bankrupting businesses who disagree with being forced to serve gays in a personal service capacity--the argument is clear.

Yes. Discrimination is illegal. It has been since 1886. It's just taken us this long to start enforcing it.

Quote:

Is this the new normal--that if you disagree in public with the gay activist agenda in general, you should lose your job? If you exercise your constitutional right to donate to causes and candidates then you should be fired? That appears to be the argument and expectation made by many if not most in this and in the other thread.

New normal? Hello, and what do you think happened to gay people? Do you remember don't ask, don't tell?

Quote:

And if that is the case, then yes, it is a very valid reason to disagree with and fight against the expansion of gay rights--before such an expectation becomes further encoded into law.

This is a case where we are actually trying to live up to a sentiment first expressed 238 years ago. Expansion of gay rights is not a bad thing, it's a case where we are becoming more humane, not less.

Is this the new normal--that if you disagree in public with the gay activist agenda in general, you should lose your job?

Here's a little experiment or you. Try getting a CEO job, and then go out in public and disagree with, oh, say, equal rights for black people.

See how long you keep your job.

Quote:

If you exercise your constitutional right to donate to causes and candidates then you should be fired? That appears to be the argument and expectation made by many if not most in this and in the other thread.

I don't think anyone is *expecting* him to be fired.

But do keep in mind that just as he has a constitutional right to do what he does, I'm pretty sure the constitution also allows for the right to say "that guy is a bigot, and he shouldn't be the head of a company like Mozilla".

Speech Nazis will rain down upon you no matter what you say, and if they really don't like you, they will just mis-quote you and lie. Of course this is all for the greater good you see, so it is ok in the end.

See, this thread, and the other one, demonstrates one of the reasons I oppose the advancement of gay rights--it inevitably clashes with rights of others.

Right now, Eich is being negatively affected by the gay rights movement; despite not being gay (I presume; I'd love to see the contortions if it was discovered that Eich is gay but doesn't believe in gay marriage--can you imagine the fireworks here?) There is a big enough stink being raised that it could very well affect his job.

The same thing happened not too long ago with that Duck Dynasty fellow, where only after a massive outcry was their leading star allowed to resume work.

The argument made in both cases is that doing anything that opposes the march of LGBT rights is a priori cause to terminate your employment. Phil Robertson, and now Eich, are presumed to be unworthy to hold employment, simply because they are visible figures who happen to disagree with this leftist cause celebrate.

Indeed, this is not the first time the gay lobby has brought pressure on and gotten someone terminated over prop 8: The name of Scott Eckern, who made a donation and then gay activists got him fired comes to mind. He wasn't a CEO, manager, public figure, or anything--just a regular joe, as far as I can tell, who happened to work in theatre.

Coupled with the recent trend of shutting down and bankrupting businesses who disagree with being forced to serve gays in a personal service capacity--the argument is clear.

Is this the new normal--that if you disagree in public with the gay activist agenda in general, you should lose your job? If you exercise your constitutional right to donate to causes and candidates then you should be fired? That appears to be the argument and expectation made by many if not most in this and in the other thread.

And if that is the case, then yes, it is a very valid reason to disagree with and fight against the expansion of gay rights--before such an expectation becomes further encoded into law.

Actually if they could, they would burn them alive. This is what happens when you give hate groups more power, because they do hate anyone that does not support their cause, something you can clearly confirm on the actions of some of this groups. Of course there are always decent and honest persons as well, but it seems organized Internet media mobbing is something they love, its todays witch-hunting and the media is the church which sends the message.

First, /can't/shouldn't/. Second, there is a difference between saying that Eich is wrong/misguided/stupid/wrongheaded/etc. and punishing him for being wrong/misguided/stupid/wrongheaded/etc. I don't like punitive expression because its ultimate aim is to silence the other side, not further dialog between the two.

Punitive expression is a tool in a toolkit. If a kid's store I frequent is run by a person who states that kids are horrible creatures and all he wants to do is make money from them, would you have me unable to choose to shop elsewhere? Why is that any different?

Quote:

So? Detainment is merely a tool to impose silence on people who you disagree with. I don't care if government has a monopoly on that particular tool because there are others tools available that accomplishes the same goal of silencing dissent.

And those tools have restrictions that are more difficult to overcome than those of the government, require popular opinion, and aren't absolute.

Tell me, why should any individual with free will be compelled not to choose the browser they want?

"compelled"? Please don't put words in my mouth. I've made it clear in my posts that I draw a distinction between legal right and what is right. People have every right to choose whatever browser they want, even if it's because they hate animals in an icon. What I'm saying is that making such choices--boycotting browsers, businesses, etc.--for reasons like this isn't good for discourse, and it isn't good for a civil society. Sure, they can. And nobody is going to "compel" them otherwise. I just hope that they see how corrosive it is and why they shouldn't.

See, this thread, and the other one, demonstrates one of the reasons I oppose the advancement of gay rights--it inevitably clashes with rights of others.

That is irrelevant. Just because rights clash doesn't mean a greater good isn't worth having.

Quote:

Right now, Eich is being negatively affected by the gay rights movement; despite not being gay (I presume; I'd love to see the contortions if it was discovered that Eich is gay but doesn't believe in gay marriage--can you imagine the fireworks here?) There is a big enough stink being raised that it could very well affect his job.

So what? That too is irrelevant.

Quote:

The same thing happened not too long ago with that Duck Dynasty fellow, where only after a massive outcry was their leading star allowed to resume work.

The argument made in both cases is that doing anything that opposes the march of LGBT rights is a priori cause to terminate your employment. Phil Robertson, and now Eich, are presumed to be unworthy to hold employment, simply because they are visible figures who happen to disagree with this leftist cause celebrate.

Yeah? I don't think there was anything wrong with either reaction. Better to hold people to a higher standard, and then relax the standard, than to have a lower standard.

Quote:

Indeed, this is not the first time the gay lobby has brought pressure on and gotten someone terminated over prop 8: The name of Scott Eckern, who made a donation and then gay activists got him fired comes to mind. He wasn't a CEO, manager, public figure, or anything--just a regular joe, as far as I can tell, who happened to work in theatre.

We're all regular joes. He was an artistic director.

Quote:

Coupled with the recent trend of shutting down and bankrupting businesses who disagree with being forced to serve gays in a personal service capacity--the argument is clear.

Yes. Discrimination is illegal. It has been since 1886. It's just taken us this long to start enforcing it.

Quote:

Is this the new normal--that if you disagree in public with the gay activist agenda in general, you should lose your job? If you exercise your constitutional right to donate to causes and candidates then you should be fired? That appears to be the argument and expectation made by many if not most in this and in the other thread.

New normal? Hello, and what do you think happened to gay people? Do you remember don't ask, don't tell?

Quote:

And if that is the case, then yes, it is a very valid reason to disagree with and fight against the expansion of gay rights--before such an expectation becomes further encoded into law.

This is a case where we are actually trying to live up to a sentiment first expressed 238 years ago. Expansion of gay rights is not a bad thing, it's a case where we are becoming more humane, not less.

Really? How about I say that what was done with this individual is also discrimination? Discriminating someone for his sexual preferences is discrimination (in this case not to be gay) and taking actions to get him fire....

Well, what gay groups do is nothing more than plain and open discrimination against people that do not support their cause.

Gay groups that lobby to get someone fired are doing exactly what is considered discrimination:

Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated."[1] It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making

He didn't apologize for his views. And he especially did not apologize for the actions of sending the donations to stop others from enjoying the legal benefits of marriage.

No, he did the extremely stereotypical zealot stance of "I'll continue to judge you internally, but give an outward appearance of acceptance/tolerance)". He'd not even offer the token quasi-apology ("oops! DIdn't mean to hurt any feelings!") if it wasn't for all the negative publicity driving down his stocks.

Since when is supporting the gay agenda a prerequisite for a job at a technology company?What does gay marriage have to do with web browsers??!

Sure there is. People just don't mind in this particular case because it fits their views. I'm sure lots of people were disenfranchised for their pro racial equality views in the 1960s and prior.

I'm an atheist. I find most religious views to be downright ridiculous. But I'm not about to call for the resignation of any religious people from a company. And it's not like most religions couldn't be characterized as 'discriminatory'.

I don't care for religious views, myself. And I wouldn't call for the resignation of a religious person just because they hold their views. I would call for their resignation if they took active steps to try and make my workplace less inclusive.

He didn't apologize for his views. And he especially did not apologize for the actions of sending the donations to stop others from enjoying the legal benefits of marriage.

No, he did the extremely stereotypical zealot stance of "I'll continue to judge you internally, but give an outward appearance of acceptance/tolerance)". He'd not even offer the token quasi-apology ("oops! DIdn't mean to hurt any feelings!") if it wasn't for all the negative publicity driving down his stocks.

Since when is supporting the gay agenda a prerequisite for a job at a technology company?What does gay marriage have to do with web browsers??!